Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1993-12-28ti I TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 28, 1993 i !LCIi IC,YVN OF I?HA( N Dat The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 28, 1993, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, James Ainslie, Eva Hoffmann, Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Louise Raimondo (Planner I), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Brittan Van Grant, Carl Flash, Noel Horn, Fred Guy, Mark i Desch, Ronda Noetscher, Macera, Engman. Chris Sapara- Elena Salerno- Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :37 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 21, 1993 and December 23, 1993, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate on December 23, 19930 Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed this segment of the meeting. PUBIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSAL TO ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 39- 1 -1.3, ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FT. COLLEGE, FROM INDUSTRIAL DISTRI( ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 115,000 UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS WITH A MAXIMUM OF 180 RESIDENTS MACERA, AGENT. (ADJOURNED FROM A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD REZONE 27.5 + /- ACRES OF TOWN OF LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA �T TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT, TO SQ . FT* BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, ITHACARE, INC., APPLICANT; MARK DECEMBER 7, 1993) Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7:39 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Planning Board 2 December 28, 1993 Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that at the December 7, 1993 Planning Board meeting there were a couple of issues that were discussed with regards to the wording of the SLUD that the staff wanted to address. One of the issues was the elevation of the building and height consideration and the impact it would have on the area. Because of the lay of the land and the configuration of the building being somewhat spread and having different wings the traditional aspect of height consideration for a building wouldn't fit in too well. The interpretation that the Building Inspector/ zoning Officer normally makes is that if the building is attached it is all one building. The idea of segmenting a building makes it difficult to interpret, which leads to interpretation problems and we want to try to make this much clearer. Mr. Walker stated that the applicants have provided the staff with elevations of the building and its segments. The primary concern here is the impact on the visual resources of the area. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Ronda Engman addressed the Board and stated that she was the Vice President of the New York State Coalition for Animals. Ms. Engman stated that she was here on behalf of the animals that would be effected by this structure and any other construction that would go on the proposed site. Ms. Engman stated that she had gone through the documents that were set aside for this development and had some questions. Ms. Engman stated that she noticed that Bob Wesley had done an inventory of the plants on the site and that she had noticed that there was no inventory of the animals, even though the DEC had been contacted. If someone from the DEC did do an inventory, that person was not noted in the documentation nor was an inventory of the animals included. Ms. Engman wanted to know if an inventory of the animals had actually been done. Chairperson Grigorov asked Ithacare representatives if an inventory was done on the site. Fred Noetscher stated that he had contacted DEC about the animals and wildlife inventory of that area and they responded that nothing was found from the endangered or threatened species list. So therefore nothing appeared on their records. Mr. Noetscher stated that he had asked several times in other situations for letters stating negatives and these agencies said that since they have nothing to say they can not give a negative declaration about that. Mr. Noetscher stated that they did find that there were possible endangered and /or threatened plant materials there and that is why the inventory of plants was done. Ms. Engman asked who had conducted the study and when it was completed. Planning Board 3 December 28, 1993 Mr. Noetscher responded that they were done by DEC and that he could not speak for them. Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone knew how often the animal surveys were done. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that Robert Wesley normally contacts Burell Buckington, with the State Natural Heritage Program who apparently had done an extensive statewide study, but Ms. Raimondo was unsure of the last time it was updated. Chairperson Grigorov asked if Ms. Engman had any specific information pertaining to this site in terms of the animals, the trails that they take, or the effect that this project could have on them. Ronda Engman stated that she knows that there was a general study done, but no one went on a site to site basis. Ms. Engman stated that she wanted someone to walk the site and inventory all of the animals, and not just the obvious animals, but the smaller less conspicuous ones as well. Ms. Engman stated that she had also noticed that someone from the DEC stated that "the site is outside the endangered species managed area however some species may occur on the site due to zones of interest ". She did not know the full ramification of this but did state that if endangered species were on the site perhaps no development would be allowed in that specific location. Ms. Engman then stated that obviously there is some question here as to whether or not there are any special animals on the site. Fred Noetscher stated the in that particular phrase, he was talking about endangered plant species. Ms. Engman stated that she had an additional concern and that was that in this same documentation it stated "possible use of existing pond and wetland for stormwater management facility ". Ms. Engman stated that there was nothing in the documentation to describe what the facility would look like. Ms. Engman asked why Ithacare would want to drain into the pond and wetland and what would occur if that happens since this is basically downhill and whatever they are draining would continue down the hill. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that at this stage of the review this is not a site plan review, this is an evaluation of the site for a recommendation to the Town Board for a rezoning request. The level of detail for the rezoning is such that the Board does an evaluation of the gross details of the area to determine if it's suitable for the type of action that the request has been made for. During the final site plan approval process which would proceed after the zoning, if the zoning change is granted to allow this Planning Board 4 December 28, 1993 proposed use here, the Town Board grants that approval. There will be detailed construction drawings required as part of the site plan review and at that time technical details of stormwater management would be addressed. Ms. Engman stated that the Board had been addressing a particular structure so far and Ithacare is speaking of some sort of facility for stormwater management. Ms. Engman wanted to know where they were to be located. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Board is speaking about a footprint of a structure, a specific building size, and there is general parking layouts that have been looked at, but there has been no intentions of final structures. Ms. Engman asked what about structures such as the stormwater management facility. Mr. Walker responded that there have been no structures discussed specifically for the site regarding any stormwater management program at this point. Ms. Engman asked if one were anticipated by the architect if the Town would expect Ithacare to present it to Mr. Walker at least initially at this time or later. Mr Walker responded that when staff reviews this type of project, based on the impact and the size of the site, they make an evaluation as to whether, in general, the best management practices will fit into the site. That determination has been made and the recommendation to the Town Board will be that yes this site is suitable for the density that they are talking about with this one structure. We have reduced the density from the original request also included single family homes or detached homes. That's been eliminated from this review at this time. Mr. Walker stated that for the single structure and related facilities he felt that there is plenty of room on this site to adequately address any drainage and stormwater management questions. Ms. Engman asked what other facilities could be other than the stormwater management facility on this site. Mr. Walker responded that when he was talking about facilities, he was referring to parking, utilities, that is the building, possibly heavy industry, recreational facilities, has no real lawns and things like that. Ms. Engman asked Mr. Walker if he had an idea of how many acres that would entail. Mr. Walker responded that this request is for a rezoning for an area that is currently zoned heavy industry, which has no real Planning Board 5 December 28, 1993 restrictions on anything for the site, it can be very fully developed, and that is why the environmental review of this type of facility has taken the stance that this is going to be of less impact to the community and the site. Ms. Engman stated "to the human community ". Mr. Walker stated to the human community and the site community because if you look just north of this area to NCR you can see that there is a very massive structure there and that's what this area is zoned for. So the Board is talking about a down zoning of this point and Mr. Walker stated that he did not feel that it would be impacting this neighborhood as much as physically, environmentally, animal, human, or plant community. Mr. Walker stated that the staff has taken into account that this site has had extensive disturbance already from agricultural activity, and mining activity. The pond that is on the site is currently an old gravel pit or quarry. Ms. Engman stated that sometimes changes like that actually bring in more species and new species. Ms. Engman stated that any kind of disturbance can actually bring in positive changes as far as some species are concerned, and Ms. Engman felt that to give that as an excuse is not valid. Mr. Walker stated that it is not an excuse, but that what he was explaining was that the environmental review and the site review that the staff has taken into account at this point in the process and we feel that from a technical standpoint following Town standards that there is significant room on this site to safely site a building and facility. Ms. Engman stated that she understood Mr. Walker's feelings but that he did not answer her question. Ms. Engman repeated herself to ask how many acres will be altered by this new site and it's related facilities. Mr. Walker responded that there would be approximately 2 1/2 to 3 acres that will be disturbed. Ms. Engman asked if that included the parking lot and all of the recreational facilities. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded "yes ". Board Member James Ainslie stated that he lives on Hayts Road and that he has seen the animal population has been very steady over the years. Animal population changes regardless of what we do to the land. Planning Board 6 December 28, 1993 Ms. Engman stated that she would like to make the following requests. 1. That there be an inventory of the animals on the site, 29 Determine if and how they will be effected by the changes in their habitat, 3. Do a deer traffic survey both summer and winter, 4. Determine how changes will of f ect deer traf f is on site and crossing 96B, 5. Determine how 400 vehicular passages per day will effect deer, determine if some sort of deer passageway under 96B will be necessary, 6. Do not use the pond and wetland for anything but surface run off. Board Member Candace Cornell asked Ms. Engman what it was about the site that lead her to be interested in it? Ronda Engman responded that the site is in one of its most productive stages and at that point you tend to get the greatest amount of diversity in a habitat. Ms. Engman stated that you also at that particular stage attracting the greatest number of deer. Ms. Engman stated that there was also a water feature that is one of the few water features in the area, being the pond and the wetlands. Ms. Engman stated that it attracts animals to that site with the water feature, and the rest of the area is fairly dry. Ms. Engman concluded by stated that she would like to see an survey of the birds that use that area. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone else present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that in regards to the wetland issue, staff and Ithacare and consultants had previous discussions on the wetlands and alerted them to the fact that there was a wetland there and it was Town policy to avoid wetland and they made a commitment, in terms of building any structures, that they would stay out of the wetlands. The only thing that Ithacare has proposed is the possible drainage of stormwater into a portion of the wetland subject to staff and Board approval at a future date. Preserving the wetland has always been part of the project. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that although Ms. Engman made some good points, she felt that the study that has been done is adequate for this point in the process. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that Ithacare requested rezoning first, if the rezoning is approved, they would need to come to the Board for subdivision approval of the 66 acres, 27 Planning Board 7 December 28, 1993 acres to Ithacare with the Ithaca College. Mr. Walker Ithacare would come before for the facility. remainder of the parcel to remain with stated that if that was approved then the Board again for Site Plan approval Chairperson Grigorov asked if there was any further discussion. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that he would like to discuss the SLUD with the Board. The Planning Board had a general discussion of the SLUR prepared for this meeting. (Hereto attached as Exhibit #l) There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Stephen Smith, seconded by Candace Cornell. 1. The Town Board has received an application to rezone a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39- 1 -1.3, located on the west side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 ft. south of the entrance to Ithaca College, from Industrial District to Special Land Use District, to allow construction of a 115,000 sq.ft. building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, and 2. The Town Board on October 4, 1993 referred said application to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation pursuant to Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Section 46, paragraph 1, and 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on December 21, 1993 has reviewed the draft Special Land Use District No. 7 legislation proposed for the site and the attached Schedule A description of the land to be rezoned, a Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town planning staff, a preliminary site plan entitled "Ithaca Center, Ithaca, New York" prepared by L. Robert Kimball Associates, Architects and Engineers, Inc. and dated October 4, 1993, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that. Planning Board 8 December 28, 1993 a. There is a need for the proposed uses allowed under the draft Special Land Use District legislation proposed for the site in the proposed location; b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the uses allowed under the Special Land Use District legislation proposed for the site will not be adversely affected; co The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article IX, Section 46, paragraph 2 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board approve the proposed rezoning of the portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.3 described in Schedule A attached to the draft Special Land Use District No. 7 legislation proposed for the site, from Industrial District to Special Land Use District No. 7. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Ithacare Rezoning to be duly closed at 8:58 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REAFFIRMATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, GRANTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON AUGUST 7, 1990, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 3.55 + /0" ACRES FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 24 -5 -10.2, 11.24 + /- ACRES TOTAL AREA, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUNDY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,700 FEET WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH HOPKINS ROAD, AG - AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. CHARLES SLAGHT, OWNER; MARK KELLER, AGENT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above,,, noted matter duly opened at 8:16 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that Mr. Keller, the agent for Mr. to the late hour and that he could answer Board may have. Mr. Frantz stated that Planning Board granted subdivision approval Frantz stated that the applicant or agent addressed the Slaght had to any questions in August of for this props at that time Board leave that 1990 )sal . faile and due the the Mr. d to Planning Board 9 December 28, 1993 file it with the County Clerk's Office. Mr. Frantz stated that someone had discovered that it was never filed while trying to sell its Mr. Frantz stated that this is before the Board for a reaffirmation of the original Subdivision Approval. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked if anything had been changed since the approval in 1990. Mr. Frantz responded that nothing had been changed. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, WHEREAS: seconded by James Ainslie: 10 This action is the Consideration of Reaffirmation of the Preliminary and Final subdivision Approval, granted by the Planning Board on August 7, 1990, for the subdivision of 3.55 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -10.2, 11.24 + /- acres total area, located on the north side of Bundy Road approximately 1,700 feet west of its intersection with Hopkins Road, AG - Agricultural District, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 71 1990, did review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town planning staff, a map entitled "Survey Map of Lands on Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and dated December 9, 1993, and other application materials, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did on August 7, 1990, make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 7, 1990, did grant, with conditions, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of 3.55 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -10.2, 11.24 + /- acres total area, as shown on the map entitled "Map to Show Parcel to be Conveyed by C . B . Slaght and L . E. Bundy, Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York ", prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and dated April 3, 19904 IZ•! T: ••: :: • 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Planning Board 10 December 28, 1993 Final Subdivision Checklist, materials presented that such significant alteration of the nor the policies enunciated of having determined from the waiver will result in neither a purpose of subdivision control implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Planning Board hereby reaffirms the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval granted by the Planning Board on August 7, 1990, for the subdivision of 3.55 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -10.2, 11.24 + /- acres total area, located on the north side of Bundy Road approximately 1,700 feet west of its intersection with Hopkins Road as shown on the map entitled "Map to Show Parcel to be Conveyed by C.B. Slaght and L.E. Bundy, Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York ", prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and dated April 3, 199011, and further shown on the map entitled "Survey Map of Lands on Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Howard Schlieder, P.E., L.S., and dated December 9, 1993, conditioned upon the following: a. Approval by the Tompkins County Department of Health of onsite water and septic disposal facilities prior to the issuance of any building permit. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Smith, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Reaffirmation of the Subdivision for Charles Slaght duly closed at 9:04 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 32- 2 -3.2, 81..8 + /- ACRES TOTAL, INTO THREE LOTS, 6.85 + / -, 1.9 + / -, AND 73.05 + /- ACRES RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 441 BOSTWICK ROAD, AG - AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. CLAIRE PALEY, OWNER; BARBARA PALEY, AGENT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9:05 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that Ms. Paley was not present, but that he could answer any questions the Board may have. Mr. Frantz stated that this was a three lot subdivision. Planning Board 11 December 28, 1993 Board Member Stephen Smith asked if this proclude subdividing the remaining parcels. subdivision would Mr. Frantz stated that the remaining parcels would not be subdivided as far as he knows. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, WHEREAS: seconded by Stephen Smith: 1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32- 2 -3.2, 81.8 + /- acres total, into three lots, 6.85 + / -, 1.9 + / -, and 73.05 + /- acres respectively, located at 441 Bostwick Road, AG - Agricultural District. Claire Paley, Owner; Barbara Paley, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 21, 1993, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land to be Conveyed to Barbara Paley, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., Land Surveyor, and dated August 10, 1993, and other application materials, and 5. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action, as proposed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above reference action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Long Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board Aye - Grigorov, Nay - None. 12 Kenerson, Ainslie, Hoffmann, December 28, Cornell, Smith. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by James Ainslie. 1993 1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32- 2 -3.2, 81.8 + /- acres total, into three lots, 6.85 + / -, 1.9 + / -, and 73.05 + /- acres respectively, located at 441 Bostwick Road, AG - Agricultural District. Claire Paley, Owner; Barbara Paley, Agent. 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 21, 1993, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land to be Conveyed to Barbara Paley, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., Land Surveyor, and dated August 10, 1993, and other application materials, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on December 21, 1993, made a negative determination of environmental significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32- 2 -3921 81.8 + /- acres total, into three lots, 6.85 + / -, 1.9 + / -, and 73.05 + /- acres respectively, located at 441 Bostwick Road, as shown on the subdivision plats entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land to be Conveyed to Barbara Paley, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., Land Surveyor, and dated August 10, 1993 and "Map of survey Land to be Subdivided by Claire Paley" also prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., dated Planning Board 13 December 28, 1993 October 28, 1993, subject to the condition that both maps be filed simultaneously in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Smith, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Barbara Paley duly closed at 9:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE CONDITIONS OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR THE MODIFICATION OF LOT LINES FOR DEER RUN PHASE III -B, GRANTED MAY 18, 1993. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9:19 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated that on May 18, 1993 Deer Run Homeowners Association came in with, Ed Hallberg as developer of Deer Run, requesting that the lot lines be changed to allow some additional buffer that the Homeowners Association felt may be lost by a subdivision. One of the conditions of approval was that by December 31, 1993 that the changes be filed, part of the problem is that they needed to have the Homeowners Association approve it, which they have approved the transfers within the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Walker stated that after that was completed, it needed to go to the State Attorney General for review, which is where it is now. Mr. Walker stated that the Town staff felt that it would be appropriate to extend the deadline to July 1, 19940 There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board extend the deadline imposed by it's resolution regarding the modification of lot lines on Deer Run Phase III -B adopted at the May 18, 1993 Planning Board Meeting, from December 31, 1993 to July 1, 19940 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board 14 December 28, 1993 Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Ainslie, Hoffmann, Smith, Cornell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Extension of the Deadline for Deer Run Homeowner's Association duly closed at 9:21 p.m. AGENDA ITEM. DISCUSSION OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY DGEIS COMMENTS. Planner I Louise Raimondo addressed the Board and stated that she had given all of the members of the Planning Board a short memo regarding the Draft GEIS to give everyone an idea of what is still out there and how they might best be tackled. If the Board wants a little guidance from the state DEC. Ms. Raimondo stated that she had also referenced some other guidance. There were a lot of questions asking what a Generic Environmental Impact Statement look like, so she provided the Board with a copy of one that was done in the City of Rochester several years ago that she worked on as the projects were just starting to come in. Ms. Raimondo stated that she had made several extra copies if the Board Members wanted to see them. This gives the Board Members an example, it may not be the best example, but it's an example and the project is not all that dissimilar, there was no proposed project at the time that the draft and final impact statements were done. There were some similar issues, such as traffic, run off, etc. Ms. Raimondo asked if the Planning Board would like to form a committee to really sit down with staff and tackle some of the harder questions of how do we want to have these public comments answered. A subcommittee to work with staff on a weekly or day to day basis. Chairperson Grigorov asked how long Ms. Raimondo thought that this would take. Town Engineer Daniel Walker responded that there is a tentative time frame prepared. Town staff would like to complete this process of incorporating the comments by March 1, 1994. (The time frame referred to above is hereto attached as Exhibit #2.) Mr. Walker stated that the GEIS is the Planning Board's document and because of that the staff wants the Planning Board to be the crafters of the final statements. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she felt that the Board should either have a subcommittee or have working sessions on every other Tuesday like there was with the working on the Comprehensive Plan. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that he did not feel that there needed to be a lot of working sessions. Planning Board 15 December 28, 1993 Board Member Stephen Smith asked what the next deadline for the GEIS was. Town Attorney ,john Barney stated that technically the Board should have it done within 45 days of completion of the Public Hearing. Attorney Barney stated that the Town has received Cornell's consent an agreement to continue somewhat beyond that deadline. Attorney Barney stated that everyone wanted to see this process come to an end that would be beneficial to both parties. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the findings could be done without the consultant. Attorney Barney stated that it might be an advantage to have the consultant go through the process because he would be the only other person that has reviewed the document thoroughly. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that the problem is that the consultant does not know what the Town wants in terms of laying out future reviews. Ms. Raimondo stated that the consultant doesn't understand the Town's review processes, the Town's various Boards, and what we expect to get out of the process. Attorney Barney stated that the consultant has a degree of expertise that nobody in the room has in terms of dealing with DGEIS in general. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that there is a sound document that was produced by the consultants and the interaction that the consultants had over the past period of time and Mr. Walker felt that it was time that the Board summarize what was done and bring it to completion. Mr. Walker stated that the staff's request of the Planning Board is to go through the memo that Louise prepared, the comments from the public, and review the necessary parts of the DGEIS and come ready to the next Planning Board Meeting to really discuss it and see if staff has addressed the Board's concerns. Attorney Shirley Egan addressed the Board stating that concerning the timing and appointment a subcommittee, she wanted the Planning Board to know that based on the public comments that Cornell University received, the information had been passed on to their consultants already and they expected to have the responses back to Cornell by mid- January. Ms. Egan stated that the water quality was the basis of some of the more heavily weighted sounding comments was the main reason for sending it to the consultants and back into the Board's hands for approval, that could save the Planning Board a lot of time. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the consultants response would come as a comment or would there be a revision of the document. Planning Board 16 December 28, 1993 Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that Cornell had offered to revise the preliminary or draft responses to the public comments to include an additional study that they've asked Sterns and Wheeler to do in relationship to cumulative impacts on Cascadilla Creek. Ms. Raimondo stated that this study may answer a lot of the questions about water quality. Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked if there were comments from the consultant for the Town about the DGEIS. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the consultant for the Town was asked to report on the completeness issue. The Draft document has been determined to address the areas that were suggested in the scope and at this point the Board needs to review the data that's been provided and make conclusions and use that base of information that we have to develop findings as far as the adequacy of the environmental review for the proposed SLUD. The Board may wish to modify the language of the SLUD if you find that the findings of the environmental review are not consistent with the SLUD. Mr. Walker stated that the whole process has been a new process to the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Walker stated that he wanted to know how the Planning Board Members felt about the document so far, how should the Board address the comments, and what direction the Board wants to go to make it their document and make sure that it expresses their concerns. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board is evaluating the comments to make the document the Board's document, part of the law requires you to evaluate comments that were made in the course of the public discussions. Attorney Barney stated that the Board Members should be able to voice their own opinions on the document as well. Board Member Robert Kenerson stated that the document is there and it can be changed at any time as the Board sees fit. Mr. Kenerson stated that it is a filtering down process which included; questions, public hearings, comments, and what the Board needs to deal with now is how much of the document is alright and how much of it needs to be changed. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that the Planning Board Members could go through the comments and decide which of the public comments are valid and worthy of a response and do you think that any additional revisions need to be made to the final document to address each issue in the comments. Town Attorney stated that the Board could chose to add an appendix of comments and changes. Planning Board 17 December 28, 1993 Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that the questions have been addressed and that it was up to the Board to decide if they have been adequately addressed and whether the Board wants to set certain thresholds for the future for things such as traffic, stormwater, whether we want to discuss the set back from natural areas that was proposed and whether its adequate, and anything else that the Board Members feel is important. Ms. Raimondo stated that the staff felt that there was enough information here for the Planning Board and Town Staff to do a final document and findings and proceed from there. Ms. Raimondo stated that staff did not feel that there needed to be any additional studies done at this point in time, however, traffic studies may need to be done as development projects occur. Town Attorney John Barney stated that an issue that must be addressed is exactly what significance does the document have for the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney stated that this process would come after adopting the document as the Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that Ellen Harrison had made a comment at a prior meeting that bothered her. Ms. Hoffmann stated that "Ms. Harrison had stated something like; "Isn't it true that if the Planning Board agree to what is says in this document then what is says in this document is essentially the word of the Town as well." Ms. Hoffmann asked what if there are statements in there that the Board Members don't agree with. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that the State is an involved agency because there may be changes to their roads. Board Member James Ainslie stated that the Board was dealing with a lot of unknowns. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the Board was also dealing with a lot of knows. Mr. Frantz stated that the Board should set guidelines for specific actions to be taken by Cornell based on specific construction projects that they embark on. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she wanted to bring up one specific example. On Page 136 regarding Precinct 9; it reads that "there are schematic plans that have been developed for the new swine barn, no building or layout plans have been developed. The schematic plans are made a part of the D /GEIS and are incorporated herein by reference." Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Board is saying that this can be done without giving much detail about it. Planning Board 18 December 28, 1993 Attorney Shirley Egan stated that the swine barns are out. Ms. Egan stated that the only part of the document that is binding is the statement of findings, this statement will be most operative because it is binding. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that the findings are critical because they will be our guidance in proposed developments in the future at Cornell University. Mr. Walker stated that the technical staff will be responsible to recommend to the Planning Board the technical questions on the technical issues. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated, for clarification purposes, that it is not unusual in this type of document to incorporate a lot of stuff which is outside the scope of the document. Ms. Raimondo responded that in the future the Board will have development proposals from Cornell University and we can go back and do is look at out SLUD, the findings, and the proposal and ask ourselves how did we address this, what is the best way to handle this. Ms. Raimondo stated that the Board is building a process to follow when development actually begins. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the Board would be bound by anything. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that Cornell can not proceed without the Board's approval. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any further comments from the Board. No one spoke. There being no further discussion, the Chair closed this part of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 14, 1993. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Stephen Smith: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of September 14, 1993, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Ainslie, Smith, Cornell. Nay - None. Abstain - Hoffmann. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Planning Board AGENDA ITEM: W] December 28, 1993 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 16, 1993. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March 16, 1993, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Ainslie, Smith, Cornell. Nay - None. Abstain - Hoffmann. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Planner I Louise Raimondo stated that the Planning Board needed to make a recommendation to the Town Board to nominate someone for the County Planning Board which Virginia Langhans had been appointed to which is up December 31, 1993. There being no further discussion, the Chair asked if there were anyone prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Candace Cornell. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the nomination of James Ainslie as Planning Board Representative on the Tompkins County Planning Board for the year 1994. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Hoffmann, Cornell, Smith. Nay - None. Abstain - Ainslie. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Planning Board 20 December 28, 1993 * * * * *A Fond Farewell to Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov***** Board Member Robert Kenerson stated to the Planning Board that they were not going to let Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov leave without showing her our appreciation. The secretary brought some refreshments for the Board to enjoy while Mr. Kenerson made his presentation. Mr. Kenerson asked if any of the Planning Board Members knew how long Carolyn had been on the Planning Board. He then presented Carolyn with the minutes from her first meeting as a Planning Board Member. The minutes were dated Tuesday, January 31 1978. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz asked if the minutes were hand written. (They were not) Attached to the minutes in discussion was the resignation from the Planning Board by Eva Hoffmann so that she could accompany her husband who was going on Sabbatic leave. All Planning Board members were asked to sign a card for Carolyn wishing her well. Mr. Kenerson then stated that he is a doodler and that he had drawn little sketches on the agenda of Carolyn's last meeting with the Planning Board before moving on to the Town Board. Mr. Kenerson then presented an all expenses paid trip via: Barnstorming Airlines. Pilot's name. John. A trip for two, in addition to John, to Antarctica on July 31, 1994. The paper granting the trip was then given to John Barney to authenticate with his signature. Mr. Kenerson then presented Carolyn with a gift certificate for dinner for two at old Port Harbor. Mr. Kenerson then stated the "You couldn't get out of here without our saying thank you." Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she really enjoyed serving with Carolyn and that she is really going to miss her. She felt that Carolyn had done a wonderful job. Ms. Cornell then stated that Carolyn is very good at keeping people in line. Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov said thank you very much to all of the Board Members and Town staff. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the December 28, 1993 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ck StarrRae ays, Recording Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board JAN 0 6 1994 TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. 1994 A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (LIMITED MIXED USE) FOR THE ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY ON DAINBY ROAD OWNED BY ITHACARE CENTER SERVICES, INC. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: 1. Article 2, Section 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be and hereby is amended by adding to the permissible districts itemized in said section a district designated as "Special Land Use District No. 7 ", 2. The uses permitted in Special Land Use District No. 7 are: (a) One multiple - family dwelling consisting of at least 40 dwelling units and up to 160 dwelling units aggregated with central dining, kitchen, activity, administration, and maintenance areas, and other related community service space, such multiple - family dwelling being intended to provide assisted living accommodations. Each dwelling unit in said multiple- family dwelling may be occupied by no more than two persons, related or otherwise. (b) Subject to special approval and site plan approval by the Planning Board the following accessory uses are permitted: (i) off - street garage or parking spaces for the residents of, employees working at, and visitors to the permitted facilities. (ii) accessory buildings such as storage sheds, pavilions, gazebos, and other similar small buildings provided that no single building exceeds more than 200 square feet in size and provided further that the size and location of each such building is approved by the Planning Board. (ui) Common recreational areas including walkways, parks, community gardens, and other similar outdoor recreational facilities. (iv) Any municipal or public utility structures necessary to the provision of utility services for the permitted facilities. (v) Signs, as regulated by the Town of Ithaca Sign Law. 3. Any use in this district shall be governed by all of the requirements, including side yards, setbacks, building coverage, building height, and similar requirements, of a Residence District R45, except as the same may be specifically modified by the terms of this local law. /;vIV4?19Is /Xil u le5 Ithacare. ll, wp51 l ith 1locallaw, , 01105194 9: 29am 4. In addition to the requirements and restrictions imposed by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the area being rezoned to Special Land Use District No. 7 shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) The exterior design, specifications, and plans for all buildings and other improvements to be constructed on the premises and the development of the grounds and construction of ail outside facilities including lighting and signs shall have been shown on a Final site plan approved by the Planning Board, and any construction thereafter shall be in accordance with said site plan as Finally approved. In determining whether or not to approve the site plan, the Planning Board shall employ the same considerations it would employ in approving the site plan pursuant to Article LX and Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. (b) Building permits shall be required for any construction, including construction of signs and outdoor lighting facilities. Such permits shall not be issued until the Planning Board has approved the design and specifications for such proposed construction. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of the Town of Ithaca. Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, in Special Land Use District No. 7, no building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 34 feet in height from the lowest interior grade or 30 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower, except, however, that the one multi- family dwelling permitted pursuant to paragraph 2(a) above may exceed said height limitations provided such building is constructed substantially in accordance with the elevations and plans denominated "Schematic Sections and Elevations" (Drawing LS -3) made by L. Robert Kimball Associates, dated December 10, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. The heights :shown on said plans shall constitute the maximum heights permitted for such building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, under no circumstances shall the highest point on the building exceed an elevation of 607 feet above mean sea level. No structure other than a building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 30 feet in height. (d) Except as specifically provided for herein any construction for which a permit is granted shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations. (e) The dwelling units in this Special Lard Use District No. 7 shall be occupied by persons over the age of 54 years requiring assisted living accommodations, except that - adult persons under 55 years of age may reside in the units if because of disabling conditions said adult persons require the services provided by the owner, provided that no more than ten per cent (10 %) of the occupants of the facility are under the age of 55. 2 Ithacare.11, wp511 ith t locallaw, , 01105194 9: 29am (f) All of the area rezoned pursuant to this local law shall be owned by the same party and there shall be no subdivision of the area contained in Special Land Use District No. 7. (g) There shall be provided at least 2 parking spaces for every three dwelling units, except that the Planning Board may reduce the required number of spaces- by no more than 2007• in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 38, subparagraph_,", of the Zoning Ordinance as amended by Local Law No. 10 for the year 1993 except that there. need not be a finding that the occupancy of the building or buildings is intended to be a multiple use. If the Planning Board permits such a reduction, the Planning Board may impose such reasonable conditions, including the conditions set forth with respect to reductions of parking spaces in business districts, as may, in the judgment of the Planning Board, be necessary to assure that such reduction will not cause congestion, create undesirable traffic flows or hazards, or otherwise be adverse to the, general.,,welfare of the community. In any event, unless expressly waived by the Planning Board, such reduction shall be subject to the same mandatory conditions as are set forth with respect to business district parking area reductions. 5. Any significant revisions to the Preliminary Site Plan ((Drawing LS -2) made by L. Robert Kimball Associates dated October 4, 1993, a copy of which is on file at the Town of Ithaca Planning Department), submitted to the Town board shall be submitted to and be approved by the Town Board before issuance of any building permits. In accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance a final site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board before issuance of any building permits. 6. The area encompassed and rezoned in accordance with this local law to Special Land Use District No. 7 is described on Schedule A to this local law. The official zoning map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding such district at the location described. 7. Any violations of the terms of this local law shall constitute a violation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and shall be punishable as set forth in said ordinance and in Section 268 of the Town Law of the State of New York. Each week's continued violation shall constitute a separate offense. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town reserves for itself, its agencies and all other persons having an interest, all remedies and rights to enforce the provisions of this law, including, without, limitation, actions, for. any injunction or other equitable remedy, or action and damages, in the event the owner of the parcel covered by this .law fails to comply with any of the provisions hereof: -._.. 8. In the event that any portion of this law is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions shall not be affected by such declaration of 3 Iduw=e.H. %p5I Uth Uocallaw, . 01105194 9:29um invalidity. 9. This law shall take effect 10 days after its publication. 3 i'i i♦ 4 Ithacare.11, wp511 ith Ilocallaw, , 01105194 9 :29am SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 7 t. ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin set at the intersection of the westerly highway line of the State of New York as appropriated for the Ithaca -Danby State Highway No. 5043 and delineated on Map 15 Parcel 22 and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office with the northerly line of lands reputedly of John M. Kelly as described in Liber 693 of Deeds at Page 255, said pin being located a perpendicular distance from the present center line of the Danby Road, State Highway Route No.96B of 110.0 feet and is located 7.7 feet northerly from a granite highway monument found; Running thence westerly an average bearing of north 83 degrees 26 minutes 05 seconds west along the northerly line of lands reputedly of Kelly, reputedly of Payne as described in Liber 340 of Deeds at Page 365 and Liber 368 of Deeds at Page 371, and continuing along the lands reputedly of Cofer as described in Liber 611 of Deeds at Page 160, for a distance of 1,434.92 feet to an iron pipe found, said iron pipe marks the northeasterly corner of lands reputedly of Turk as described in Liber 458 of Deeds at Page 522; Running thence north an average bearing of north 04 degrees 26 minutes 55 seconds east along the easterly line of lands reputedly of Berggren as described in Liber 624 of Deeds at Page 79 and continuing along lands reputedly of Puerta as described in Liber 577 of Deeds at Page 613 and continuing along the lands reputedly of Goodloe as described in Liber 656 of Deeds at Page 590, for a distance of 714.42 feet to an existing iron pipe, said iron pipe marks the northeasterly corner of lands of Goodloe; Running thence north 89 degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds east along a proposed new division line through the lands of Ithaca College for a distance of 1,375.48 feet to an iron pin set; Running thence south 78 degrees 28 minutes 05 seconds east and continuing through the lands of Ithaca College for a distance of 230.0 feet to an iron pin set in the westerly highway line of New York State Route 96B, Danby Road; Running thence south 11 degrees 31 minutes 55 seconds west along the westerly highway line of New York State Route 96B, the Danby Road for a distance of 525.0 feet to an iron pin 5 IAJ 2care.11, wp511ithUocaUdw, , 01105194 9.29am set, said iron..pin_.marks the northeasterly corner of the scenic overvievv area as appropriated by the State of New York, Running-thence north 78 degrees 33 minutes 31 seconds west along the northerly line of the scenic overview_ar"ea for a distance of 60.0 feet to an iron pin ser;; Running thence south l I degrees 30 minutes 40 seconds west along the westerly line of the scenic overview area for a distance of 335.64 feet to an iron pin set, the point and place of beginning. Said parcel contains 28.010 acres of land to the highway line. I r i r,• M i i i i rn I r i r,• M i i i rn I fj� N N 00 to W 4 Y (D c cD ►� � � O• n � pt tm- F�• Ch �na� o La ko " ..:i(i. �. � _. . -:�a i(.,i1 r�a .�y>Ji. .yr -�.. -r r.W ..•i.' li� ��? f d. F+ �:. :�: .-:� ��:. .. - � :. , cD_a��;,►-w air °�h ��� Fa• 0�w OJA CD N31 c� II Q"n f» 3 C 0QAiLa N (D ts' =$ m el %%� 'D HQ to 0 F--� (A (D F-+ (D � rr \ rr rr �a to �Mb• r• v 6ch, 0 0 v 3 0 C rr rr (A C CD flr "n f» =10 0 -0 N (D ts' =$ 3n\ R %%� fl 'o to o m rr (1] M COrr\ � Oa to rr �a %D m r• 0 a n 0 ID 3 r• C rr rr (A C (D flr u L 00) n =10 0 EO N (D ts' =$ CD R %%� (D a;oa 0 X m rr (1] M CD � Oa (T (D �a �v c m n 0 rr 3 r• C (D rr (A C flr mC7M06 n 7 0 0 N m o PI 0) b %%� (D a;oa to-& P7] 1'� (1] a (D (D fD m i 0 0 n 7 0 0) 0 0 N rr a n� %%� (D 'O to-& N (1] (D (D m 06 0 0 > 0 (D r- t0 N 0 C (D %%� CL a to-& (D m 06